Category Archives: England EU Referendum IN or Out.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: THESE DAY’S IS THERE ANYTHING SUCH AS POLITICAL SCIENCE.

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Elections 2019, Fake News., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

 

Call it what you want:

Political Science,  Political theory, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Methodology. It all leaves you scratching your head and wondering what is Political Science exactly?

Political Science is a social science that focuses on government institutions and political behaviour, but how exactly did it come about?

When one watches gatherings such as the G7/8 of world leader one would have to ask where are we going.

Every major media outlet has a political scientist on call to commentate about likely voter reactions to the candidates’ stances on hot-button issues.

The behavioural models that political scientists create can practically forecast the outcome of an election before a single vote has been cast.

However in the 21st, it means “democracy”, is the crowd-sourcing of politics run by algorithms.

So political science is governed by five myths:

That it is possible to study politicsn> That it is scientific > That it is possible to study politics separated off from economics, sociology, psychology and history > That the state in our democratic capitalist society is politically neutral, that is available as a set of institutions and mechanisms to whatever group wins the election > That political science, as a discipline, advances the cause of democracy.

For me it is “superficial and trivial”, and that concept formation and development is “little more than hair-splitting and jargon”

These days we are told if something can’t be measured, then that’s not it, and if an event didn’t happen twice, then it didn’t happen.

One way or the other all the more interesting questions falling outside the bounds of scientific investigation, the internet age is gradually forcing itself upon our leaders but it is unlikely to make them reconnect with voters “less because they see the light, and more because they are beginning to feel the heat”.

For all the talk about politics, political science has never decided what exactly it should study.

The result is that many trivial matters receive an inordinate amount of attention and many important ones go untreated like climate change.

In short, political science seems to have turned around the order in which any person not trained in the discipline would try to answer the questions.

We will soon learn that political science is not about the real world but only about those features of the world that can be studied by methods deemed to be scientific.

“What should I study?” and “How should I study it?”.

What has political science found out about the political sphere that we didn’t know before, or that isn’t abysmally trivial?

It makes even the worst real-world inequalities acceptable (not worth bothering about) by rendering them irrelevant to the task at hand. Guess to whose benefit?

Few things are more important to the legitimation of capitalist rule than the assurance given by political science that the dictatorship of the capitalist class in which we live is really a democratic state of the whole people.

If political science really wishes to advance the cause of democracy (as one of the myths of our discipline already has it doing), we should help people understand that the main barrier to democracy today is capitalism.

Given the importance of the capitalist context for everything that goes on inside it, this is also a first step toward making our research truly scientific, that is capable of uncovering how the state and politics really work, and how—with the democratization of undemocratic capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange—they might yet come to work for everyone.

Now here is a non-trivial agenda worthy of political science that aspires to advance the cause of democracy through the use of scientific

The rational choice carries the miniaturization of political science one step further by dismissing what people actually do politically and concentrating on their decisions to do it,

We see news reports, headlines in the papers and if one checks the details you find that the headlines are misleading or half-truths.

I accept that all news, in whatever medium, is subject to some editorial bias but the days of reporting the facts dispassionately are gone due to social media.

Take Brexit for example:

Parties that had strong collective identities are now falling asunder all being lead by popularism into political cul-de-sacs. The loyalty and cohesion of political parties now depend much more on short term smartphone mass memberships.

The results are tragi-comedy modernisation and public mistrusted.

This is what motivated the In or Out referendum not an understanding of the long term consequences.

Annexing subjects like the European Union affects all lives in countless ways –

I don’t think that any political science predicted a Party without power or fame the Brexit Party. It now represents a piece of evidence about how the ground is shifting.

Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa, where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our “big brother,”

The digital revolution will do to grand planners in the West what the collapse of Communism did to socialist planners in the old Soviet bloc”.

THE PROBLEM IS:

Are we somehow going to see sense and see through the lies?

How have rampant inequalities shaped electoral campaigns and promises?

We don’t need political science to say that global climate change is real.

If you don’t believe it you’re anti-facts.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS, to open up politics with the right of “recall” against MPs with whom constituents were dissatisfied.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS ENGLAND NOW JUST LACKING ONE MORE INGREDIENT FOR CIVILIANS STRIFE.

13 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Northern Ireland., Social Media, The common good., The Euro, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

Three years of political disarray are now climaxing in a non-democratic election of a new prime minister.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of civil unrest"

In the present environment which has little or no social purpose, the fundamental problem is that a hung parliament is electing a new leader for the country without a mandate from the country as a whole.

It is absurd to be able to become a leader of a country just because your party is currently in power. Which can only lead to a General election that is going split the United?

All of this is driven by populous Social Media chatter which is trying to be heard under rules of an unwritten constitution based the Great Charter or Magna Carta libertatum written by a bunch of rich dudes with swords who got mad at their king.

Most of the 63 clauses of the Magna Carta were concerned with guaranteeing feudal law and benefited only the feudal nobility. The Church was granted its traditional freedom and privileges. A few clauses dealt with the rights of the middle class in the towns and relieved some economic inequities. But the ordinary freeman and peasant, who made up the vast bulk of England’s population, were scarcely mentioned.

The Magna Carta was not, therefore, a great democratic document, securing fundamental liberties for all. Instead, it was essentially a feudal charter assuring privileges to the aristocracy.

Since its inception 800 years ago, it has been used several times to restrain the power of the monarch. Although the more dated clauses have since been repealed, some remain enshrined in British law today, in particular, the right to a fair trial for all citizens.

Indeed the core principles of Magna Carta can also be found in a variety of legal documents today and are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not bad for a document that lasted 10 days.

Still considered to be Britain’s “statute number one,” to understand the civil rights it provides and the foundation it laid for future use.

Modified several times over the centuries by ordinary laws issued by the parliament, it is still considered a valuable and fundamental document.

A document which Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘changed the world’.  Indeed! it did.

We feel nothing of the drama and shenanigans of those days of political fever.

I am not advocating here that this the reason that England could see civil unrest but it has set helped to set a class structure that is now divided and will be unable to unite whether England stays in or is attached or leaves the European Union.

That apart the fuse awaiting to be light, is the Northern Ireland backstop.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Brixit is no longer about whether is In or Out of the European Union rather it is about, an out of date voting systems First Past the post, that gives a limited voice to the population as a whole.Image associée

The Eatonmess is now an English breakfast.

Can it be resolved?

Yes and No

It looks more and more like a serious political uprising will erupt when the magic ingredient are in place.

Economic backwardness the Northern Ireland backstop and a deal with Mr Donald Dump, a General election with Nigel Farage, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

There is only one reasonable course and that is to abort articular 50.

In doing so in order to show genuine participation join the Euro.

So can there ever be a morally respectable case for using predictions of civil unrest as an argument against a proposed policy?  Undoubtedly.

I am afraid that Brexit goes much further than leaving the EU it is reverting to Nationalism due to among many other things the lack of Civic Education to impart an Identity, to the tabloid press and social media that is spreading a post-factual society where evidence and truths no longer matter where lie and truth have equal status.

The gaps between perception and reality must be addressed. One can see this when it comes to immigrants not just in the Uk but across Europe. Immigrants that get resident status should be spread throughout the country and not allowed to settle in certain regions.

Everybody must share in the countries wealth by issuing Citizens bonds. ( See the previous post)

More responsible politics, polarized societies are far less tolerant of Globalization.

This requires dropping the language of fear.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE NOW FOR ENGLAND.

22 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections 2019

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Six-minute read)

Great Britain is just a geographical term, not a country, state, or political entity.

England, which means “land of the Angles”.  COULD DO WITH A FEW.

The Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages.

I AM NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT ITS FOOTBALL TEAM, ITS CRICKET TEAM, NOR RUBGY.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of england departing from europe"

So answer me this:

Why would you allow a handful of billionaires to poison your national conversation with disinformation—either directly through the tabloids they own, or indirectly, by using those newspapers to intimidate the public broadcaster?

Why would you allow them to use their papers to build up and co-opt politicians peddling those lies? Why would you let them get away with this stuff about “foreign judges” and the need to “take back control” when Britain’s own public opinion is routinely manipulated by five or six unaccountable rich white men, themselves either foreigners or foreign-domiciled?

But what can England learn from Brexit?

Not all is well with the collective psyche—the in-your-face binge drinking, the bookies stoking gambling addiction on every high street, the abject but routine neglect of public housing which went undiscussed until the Grenfell Tower fire.

The class divide and the class fixation, as well as an unhinged press, combine to produce national psychology that makes Britain a country you simply don’t want in your club.

Here are a few suggestions for the future that don’t just apply to England but to the whole of Europe.

One person waiting to see a doctor, one person lying in a hospital corridor, one person sleeping rough, one person relying on food banks, one person receiving hate mail, one person dying without dignity, one person

In the event, the UK leaves the EU in a no deal scenario, here are 7  things England needs to do now.

They all Call for ‘Fundamental action’ not GDP.

One: Get rip of First past the post and let the voice of the people be heard with a written constitution that is not written on parchment back in June 1215. The certainty that everything has already been written annuls us or renders us phantasmal.

Two: Get ride of postcode lottery social care provisions.

Three: Get rid of the tabloids gutter press.

Four: Social housing should be unconditional and social care free at the point of delivery.

Five: Stop spending billions on worthless nuclear arms and power stations.

Six: Stop school lotteries and abolish students debts. It really doesn’t matter for your identity or your prospects exactly which school or university you went to as long as it free. It is quite ironic that a nation that gave the world the term “fair play” sees the fact that rich children receive a better education than poor ones as a perfectly natural thing.

Seven: Grow up the modern world that is entering the 4th Industrial revolution, while climate change that will destroy it requires long-term planning, not eco-driven politics by career politicians.

Nor do I blame working-class people for seething at a system whereby the time you are 11 the die is cast and were—to add insult to injury—you are constantly told that this is a meritocracy where all that counts is hard work and being “aspirational”- bull shit.

There is another, final, side to this class system à l’Anglaise. It seems to breed a perspective on the world that is zero-sum. Your class system is a form of ranking. For one to go up, another must go down. Perhaps this is why sports are such an obsession. This attitude then justifies the enduring ignorance about the EU, its member states and European culture generally. The superiority complex feeds a sense of entitlement.

For example, the EU “needs us more than vice versa.” It’s abject nonsense, as was the presumption that after the Brits voted to leave, other EU countries would follow.

“It might also be worth acknowledging, that, on balance, the EU27 also has more power to protect its interests in these negotiations than Britain does.”

Ever since the referendum, friends from across the world have been enquiring whether it is true that the British have gone mad.

It is extremely difficult to see a scenario in which this whole Brexit saga could end well. Legally, politically and logically the EU cannot give the UK the kind of deal that would draw this chapter to a happy close.

You don’t have to a genius to know that a sweet soft deal, will encourage every EU member state to demand their own special arrangement, and that would be the end of the EU.

While the imagination of many “Leave” voters remain in the grip of the tabloids, any concession to the reality of national interests risks inflaming rage and cries of betrayal.

As for the EU, it is first and foremost a rule-based organisation. If the rules around Article 50 were bent to allow Britain back in on special terms, then the whole edifice is undermined. Scotland should be let in if it wants, and Northern Ireland too. But England is out and must be kept out—at least until it has resolved its deep internal problems. Call it nation building.

While not everything about the British disease harked back to Empire and while most of the above needs a growing economy god forbid the future of England is written or run by a dupe of Donal Trump.

Rember: Before you vote that any deal in or out has to be ratified by all Member States required at least two years. This meant that any deal is not feasible in practice. Vote to stay and fight your quarter. It makes no sense to disengage from our major market where we would still face all the costs of compliance and enjoy none of the influence. We can achieve reform by being an active and leading member from within.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE WHOLE BREXIT MESS NOW BOILS DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING: TO OPPOSE BREXIT IS LINKED TO BEING AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

20 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Elections 2019, European Elections., Nigel Farage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

However Democratic legitimacy goes hand in hand with the rules of law.

When rules are broken in an election, or referendum defending the result of what went wrong isn’t defending democracy it is subverting it.

If one looks at the in and out campaigns the result doesn’t have democratic legitimacy because the leave vote won on lies and promises.

There is nothing wrong or illegitimate about voters choosing an option even if it is now widely seen as against their self-interests and generally accepted now (on reflection) is detrimental on many fronts.

It is pathetic to watch a nation ruin what is left of its world influence by insisting that its people spoke or for that matter to think it is the best for England is not the point.

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May: ‘Talking in vague metaphors.’

The European elections are not offering the English public a second chance to fix the first result but an opportunity for the winning campaign to win by the rules rather than by breaking them.

The leader of the New Brexit party doesn’t want Brexit.

He like is tutor MR DUMP is using Brexit as a vehicle to benefit his own pockets.

To counter Farage, more needs to be done.

Picking him apart on political shows don’t work because it’s just the establishment – aimless with everything subject to Populism interpretation through the lens of the media.

So what is hidden behind the smile?

Nigel Farage dominated the UK Independence Party for 20 years and served as its leader twice while campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. Since then Ukip has been in almost perpetual chaos, with four leaders in two years.

He is MEP, 54, born in Kent on April 3, 1964. Dad-of-four married a German-born Kirsten Mehr in 1999 after his divorce from his first wife Gráinne Hayes.

He was educated at Dulwich College, a public school in South London.

His father Guy, a stockbroker, was reportedly an alcoholic who left the family home when Nigel was five.

Nigel did not go to university, instead, going to work in the City trading commodities at the London Metal Exchange.

His City career lasted more than 20 years, even after he was elected to the European Parliament.

His salary as an MEP is €8,484 a month or €101,808 a year – around £89,934 at current exchange rates.

He also gets office allowances of around £46,000 a year.

Mr Farage used to employ his wife Kirsten as a secretary on £27,000 a year until MEPs were banned from paying family members.

He is lavishly funded by Arron Banks. Banks is under investigation by the National Crime Agency over allegations of criminal offences by him and his unofficial leave campaign in the EU referendum.

The insurance tycoon providing him with a furnished Chelsea home, a car and driver, security guards and money to promote him in America.

Besides Brexit, what does Farage defend?

Nothing else.

Like all populists, he is dangerous because he wants to create demands that cannot be met and you can be sure that he will disappear as quickly as he appeared once Britain is out of the Union.

Farage has made it clear that power in Westminster does not interest him.

Nigel Farage himself has made millions.

He did this by saying that the Remainders had won, conceding defeat on the evening of June 23rd, whilst being fully aware that it was far more likely that the Leave campaign had won.

He could have known this through a raft of private exit polls procured by hedge funds that showed the true state of affairs. As a result, the pound sterling was shorted at $1.50, knowing that it would likely drop to just $1.32 overnight.

So how did a stockbroker’s son become a mouthpiece for the disaffected working class?

Wake up Britain. Have a look at the state of the world around you. The Nigel Farage’s  – Jeremy Hosking – Jacob Rees- Moggs of this world all have hedge funds. They are pulling the wool over your eyes.

Indeed you should all be protesting that your parliament is no longer functioning or currently able to deliver any form of representative democracy and it will remain so after the leaving unless it drags itself or it is dragged into the modern age to represent its citizens, not GDP.

Maybe if England had sent constructive reformist’s instead of men like Farage it would have all been solved by now.

If the European Union is looking at future its difficulties are indeed in need reform but god only knows what the results will be for an unattached England.

A no deal could be the beginning of something better. Imagine that.

Hopefully, my English friends you will see sense and NOT put your mark at the Brexit Party.Nigel Farage standing in front of poster during EU referendum

The fact that the above picture became a defining issue in the leave campaign was in no small measure down to him.

The Fact that Farage has said that the Brexit party is predominantly financed by the £25 fees of its 100,000-plus paying supporters – it has no members. The Brexit party has reportedly raised more than £2m in donations, but its leader, Nigel Farage, had refused to reveal the identities of the major donors.

All our societies in the world are at a crossroads and faces two different and distinct futures: one which is open and one which is closed.

A closed future is one where knowledge is exclusively owned and controlled, leading to greater inequality.

Already, large unaccountable technology companies have monopolised the digital age, and an unsustainable concentration of wealth and power has led to stunted growth and lost opportunities.

We have already started on the path towards a closed society, and without urgent action, we will find ourselves in a world of extraordinary and growing concentrations in power and wealth, with innovation held back and distorted by monopolies, essential medicines affordable only to the rich, and freedoms threatened by manipulation, exclusion and exploitation. Nobody under 50 will remember the convolutions surrounding British entry to the European Union.  But everybody today will remember how it left. Leg before wicket.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS INCONVENIENT. THERE ARE AND WILL BE CONSEQUENCES AWAY BEYOND BREXIT.

08 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Backstop., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

(Ten-minute read)

This is a sad subject to be writing on but it is becoming more and more obvious as Brexit drags on  IT IS OPENING UP THE PAST.

Politicians, public, and press need remedial history lessons before it’s too late.

May has “gone into battle with the white flag fluttering over our leading tank,” complains Johnson as if the Brexit negotiations were a job for a British expeditionary force. While the horrors of war remind the UK’s continental neighbours of the need for co-operation, Britain’s war story feeds an adversarial view of the country’s place in the world.

WHAT BEGUN TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED DUBLIN LONDON CO-OPERATION, PUBLIC JESTERS OF GOODWILL THROUGH VISITES OF QUEENS AND PRESIDENTS TO EACH OTHER JURISTRICTIONS.

THOSE THINGS NOW SEEM LIKE THINGS OF THE PAST.

Why?

Because there is and was little or no understanding of Irish History.

(Which is going to show itself once more when the dust settles.)

One can hardly understand why our world become the world we live right now but not the other way around.

PERHAPS THEREFORE THERE IS LITTLE REASON OR REASONS TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THE ROOTS OF BREXIT BECAUSE MOST ARE SOMEWHAT INCOMPENHENSHABLE IN OUR CHANGING WORLD.

SO WHAT CHANCE DID THE ENGLISH HAVE OR HAD OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THEY WERE VOTING TO LEAVE THE EUROPEN UNION?

One way or the other England is now well on the way toward been mugged by a combination of the DUP, Nigel Farage and their misplaced understanding of being British in a world driven by social media popularism.

The attitude displayed by the United Kingdom so far is that Ireland has no influence on the historical process of England, therefore we don’t need to learn its history.

I suspect that if you asked someone in school right now in England what they know or learned about Irish history the answer would be, not much, especially considering history is completely optional.

I also strongly suspect the lack of it is contributing greatly to Brexit.

Occasionally Ireland might have been mentioned as a sub-note, such as its neutrality in WW2 and invasions by other English/British rulers.

In fact, in the Grand Scheme of things these days; Knowledge is spoon fed and compartmentalized in such rations. People only think they know what they know. And given a degree to say they are educated.

However here and now is the time for the whole of the British Isles to appreciate what is at stake and why.

May agrees on a £1.5bn deal for DUP’s votes.

As a result, we are witnessing the most unlikely coalition partners for a floundering Conservative party sit on the hard right fringe of British politics.

Why?

Because Theresa May’s new partners in government have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups.

So what!

The idea of a British government involving the DUP in one of the biggest

upheavals in British politics should worry all of us.

The Good Friday agreement made Northern Ireland and Ireland pause for a moment to note and reject sectarian history.

By entering into a coalition with the DUP it is becoming ever more apparent that Mrs May does not consider Peace or Stability in NI a priority. Instead, she is sacrificing years of work on the Peace process in order to say in power.

The xenophobia, heterophobia and homophobia of Democratic Unionism have now received a form of tacit endorsement from the Conservative Party, a wink-and-a-nod acknowledgement which will give 17th century Protestant fundamentalism a platform to preach its archaic world-view in the 21st century. From opposing civil rights to denying climate change, the creationist-believing Ulster Trumps have been offered a warm welcome in Downing Street.

The DUP is UKIP or the BNP both are parties on European far right, a grouping in the mode of Marine Le Pen’s Front national or Frauke Petry’s Alternative für Deutschland all will take this sacrifice to the nth degree.

The Europhobes of the DUP, with their determination to build a Brexit Border around the UK-administered Six Counties, will seek every advantage over their near-equals in the northern nationalist community.

They will seek, like the Tory extreme, to tear up the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, and its human rights’ provisions, while stripping nationalists of their Irish and European Union citizenships.

They will bring the politics of Britain’s legacy colony in the north-east of Ireland closer to a fatal breaking point than they have been at any point in the last twenty years.

For an abundance of historical reasons (not to be dragged up here in any detail) it certainly worries the Irish Government.

What is needed is for responsible politicians to recognise that the DUP bills itself as “right-wing.

For example;

Iris Robinson, a former DUP MP, described homosexuality as “disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile”, as well as an “abomination” that could be “cured”.

Mr Robinson the then DUP leader supported his wife’s remarks, saying: “It wasn’t Iris Robinson who determined that homosexuality was an abomination, it was The Almighty. This is the Scriptures.

It is a strange world indeed where somebody, on the one hand, talks about equality, but won’t allow Christians to have the equality, the right to speak, the right to express their views.”

So where does Theresa May go from here?

She can’t just get rid of her DUP crutch. She signed a deal with the devil and has to live with it now.

I think the technical term is she is fucked and by deduction, the UK is also fucked by the DUP’s disproval of the backstop deal miscolour Northern Ireland as a whole.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the origins of the dup"

Ireland has struggled with British domination for centuries and still does so today.

WHEN THEY ARE UNABLE TO GOVERN NORTHERN IRELAND.

What gives the DUP the right to dictate Brexit?

WHEN THEY ARE UNABLE TO RECOGNISE Irish Gaelic a minority language in Northern Ireland who’s protection stems largely from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

( THE REASON THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO RECOGNISE THE IRISH LANGUAGE IS THAT THE DUP ASSOCIATE THE USE OF IRISH AS A FORM OF NATIONALISTS CULTURAL EXPRESSION AND RESISTANCE FROM THE SO-CALLED BRITISH OCCUPATION.)

It has long been a matter associated with an identity. Take the two National anthems.

A Soldier’s Song against God Save the Queen.

Ulster unionists regard the anthem as specific to the Republic of Ireland, not symbolic of the whole island of Ireland, and deprecate its use with United Ireland symbolism as irredentism.

The symbolism of flags in Northern Ireland raises similar issues.

IRELAND CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT WEAKEN IT’S STANCE ON A LEGAL BACKSTOP.

Ireland fought the Vikings, they mated with the Vikings and got colonized by the Vikings.

They fought the English, mated with the English, got colonized by the English.

What is emerging from Brexit is that England does not have any longer a national identity.

It is not the British that does not want to be European its the English. Nationalism is the root cause of war.

By refusing to confront its complex and difficult history, Britain is turning its back on decades of shared progress, to the dismay of its friends. Britannia is adrift on the waves, and only by facing its past can it reclaim its future.

They say that mad dogs and English men come out in the noonday sun.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS.

26 Saturday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Twenty-minute read)

The UK is now stepping up plans to trade with the EU under WTO terms in the

the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexiteers can’t see the huge damage that trading on WTO terms would

inflict on the UK economy.  I don’t blame them.

Because we all have a superficial understanding of the rules of WTO.

Because the UK’s terms at the WTO are enshrined in its membership of the

EU.

Why?

Well, you only have to look at what is involved to realise why very few if any understand the operations of WTO.

10-year interim agreement doesn't make sense

One of the WTO’s key rules is that countries should treat their trading partners equally. In WTO jargon this is called most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) — favour one; favour all.

So what is the WTO:

It’s a system of trade agreements, which discipline governments’ trade policies so that international trade is not a free-for-all — the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle.It’s 164 member governments (the present total).

Decisions among those 164 member governments are by consensus, if anyone among them, big or small, cannot accept a decision, there’s no deal.

In fact, each country may have more than one opinion on a particular issue, but let’s not get into that here.

Some people think the WTO Secretariat is the WTO, but strictly speaking, that’s not correct. The Secretariat is a bureaucracy set up to help member governments operate the trading system.

It’s true that the head of the Secretariat is called the Director-General of the WTO, because the WTO is also an international organisation, like the United Nations, UN Environment Programme or the World Bank.

But the WTO DGs are still the servants of the members, a cause of frustration for some of them.

When the negotiators get down to specific subjects such as agriculture or fishing subsidies, those sessions are chaired by ambassadors or other delegates.

It is sufficient to say that Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past when it comes to trading under WTO.

They believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

All of this has long passed, with the result that the Brexiters are now unable to fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy.

While other countries struggle to understand why any nation would willingly leave the world’s largest trading bloc to trade on WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”.

Even if it is obvious to the rest of the world it is not possible to ring up the WTO and say, “Hey, WTO! We’re negotiating a free trade agreement. It may take 10 years. While we’re doing that, we might violate some of your non-discrimination rules.”

The UK is currently a WTO member in its own right.

The issue is it does not have an independent schedule of concessions for the WTO – that’s the menu upon which Britain trades with the rest of the world.

So any future agreement has to contain details, including a plan and timetable for concluding the final agreement. This means that any formal WTO agreement between the UK and EU would obviously mean that the EU would have to be on board too.

In fact, there is no WTO definition of an interim agreement.  No country wants to go through all the above unnecessarily, which is why interim agreements are never notified to the WTO.

In theory, the transition customs union and the Protocol on Northern Ireland / Ireland (the “Backstop”) in the Withdrawal Agreement could qualify as an interim agreement.

The attached non-binding political declaration on the future relationship would not, since it’s not an agreement.

On the face of it, this is about protectionism versus access to markets (or to imports)

So what the problem?

The EU has around 100 tariff quotas:

Tariff quotas have emerged as part of the UK’s need to re-establish itself as a WTO member independent of the EU. In particular, the UK has to separate its own tariff quotas from those of the EU’s, and even if the UK wanted to take this complicated route, there’s little chance the EU would agree.

Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Britain says it will stick to the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member.Seattle protests 1999 Seattle Municipal Archives, (CC BY 2.0)

Britain referendum on the left side was sold on many lies with one stating that the EU is non-democratic.

Is the WTO Democratic?

This is a difficult one:  The short answer is yes and no like the EU.

With the WTO if a country is a dictatorship, then I’m afraid the representative is probably not elected (allowing for multiple shades of grey over what those words actually mean)

In the WTO world no wants to interfere in that, so it just accepts whatever each country’s domestic system produces.

The WTO is definitely democratic among its governments.

The consensus rule means all members have equal say. Voting is available as a fallback, but so far members have rejected that option.

But does it represent the people?

At least as much as any other international organisation. Some governments are democratic; some are not.

One of the problems is that in the Brexit debate people are comparing the WTO with the European Union, which has an elected parliament as well as a council of member states meeting regularly at ministerial or head-of-government level.

The comparison is false.

The EU has a bureaucracy with executive power and a legislature which handles laws.

The WTO’s bureaucracy — the Secretariat — has no executive power.

The closest equivalent to legislation in the WTO is its trade agreements and they are negotiated by all the governments together.

Is it a good idea for the WTO to be run by directly elected representatives?

Only if you believe that directly elected politicians are better at negotiating some pretty technical and complicated trade agreements than our trade ministers and their officials. Or if you believe in world government.

Then we come to the question of Tariffs:

Tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service.

For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.

WTO rules on non-tariff barriers (things like regulations on product safety, rules of origin and quotas) are very limited and not recognised universally.

For example, they do not prevent the EU requiring certification for a whole host of goods and services that originate from outside the EU.

Things such as medicines, product and food safety standards in the UK are currently recognised as EU ones. But when the UK leaves the EU, UK manufacturers may need conformity assessments from the EU recognised body, which is a legal responsibility of an EU importer.

This would mean that UK exports would take longer to reach the EU markets and the UK products would be more expensive in the EU.

Under WTO-only rules, the UK will not be able to have a frictionless border with the EU.

Exporters would have to prove they meet all of the EU’s product standards and regulations, which will be costly and slow down business.

One suggestion has been that the UK scrap all tariffs and regulations for EU imports and continue to accept all products from the EU without checks. But, according to the WTO rules, the UK should extend this approach to products from all other WTO members (it has to treat everyone equally).

WTO rules barely cover trade in services, including financial services and transportation.

So, trading on only the WTO terms would mean no deal on air transport. Access to the EU single aviation market requires airline companies to have their headquarters and majority shareholdings in the EU so airlines would have to relocate.

There is also nothing in WTO rules that would allow UK-based banks to keep trading across the EU. This is why the government has said banks could set up subsidiaries in the EU.

Under WTO terms, the EU should treat the UK like any other country without providing any preferences and applying WTO tariffs – a big change from the zero tariffs that the UK has now.

FINALLY:  Where are we now.

The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner.

In 2017, 44% of UK exports went to the EU and 53% of all UK imports came from the EU.

Both the UK and the EU filed documents in Geneva outlining the terms they will use to trade with the rest of the world after Brexit – and the two submissions are fundamentally different.

A major sticking point for them is the fact that the EU and the UK share a quota system that limits imports of sensitive goods like beef, lamb and sugar.

The UK cannot simply replicate these quotas and has proposed to split them with the EU based on historical trade flows.

All of this means that if and when any country object and ask for a better deal, Britain will be simultaneously be negotiating a trade deal with the EU and the WTO.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT EFFECTS IF ANY SHOULD BREXIT HAVE ON THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN MARCH.

13 Sunday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The Euro, Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Twelve-minute read)

The Brexit referendum has and is demonstrating that the EU is not an irrevocable project.

It is now an internal power struggle while the EU _was_ an attempt to ensure peace and prosperity over the west part of the continent instead of the “costly” wars and colonial economics.

However, as the days go bye it is becoming more and more apparent that the EU is not for the people of Europe as a whole.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union elections"

Brexit for all its reasons is an example that is now shining a light on the forthcoming European Elections. Especially on the pros and cons of is there a future as separated national states or the Union.

Why?

Because Brexit’s main players have failed to comprehend the true significance of the European Union, bringer of peace.

Probably they intentionally refused to understand it in order to carry forth their destructive policies without qualms, hoping to reap the fruits in national elections.

But what is actually happening is that it is bringing England and their voters into a state of isolation, coupled with political and economic problems that are currently afflicting the United Kingdom it might be no longer a Union.

There is no doubting that Brexit will negatively affect the European Union, and its Member States, and its citizens, but the EU will be compensated by having gotten rid of a reluctant member that constantly hindered every effort aimed at the necessary, logical development of the integration process.

This is no fault of the in or out voters, rather it is playing out the falsehoods spread by Social media that appeal to nationalism rules & will, which in the current set up of the European Union will trump the forced solidarity of Brussels. 

No one can “force solidarity” upon you. Nor can a currency forge deeper integration. 

Only collective suicide can do so.

So are the up and coming elections going to deeper disunity than unity?

The results of the European elections will constitute the grounds for the renewal of EU institutions and of its leadership. It then remains to be seen to what extent Europeans would have a political interest in mitigating the psychological impact of this Brexit chaos on European citizens.

At the end of all this madness, what is the EU going to look like?

On May 23 to 26 the citizens of 27 Member States will be called to renew the European Parliament. Then it is the turn of the formation of the new EU Commission. A busy timetable marked by growing anti-European movements and by the possibility of citizens’ mobilization.

If England requests an extension of article 50 it will extend into the period of Europes own elections thus linking the absurd ongoing spectacle in the British Parliament- which will lead to all of us witnessing the consequences of anti-European, nationalistic propaganda based on lies and slander against the European project.

So Europe will be in a quandary.

It cannot be seen unwilling to offer an extension, nor can it risk a Brexit bush fire by an extension of  Article 50 over four months. 

The current crisis that Europeans are both observing and undergoing is nothing but the readjustment of a project that no longer serves the needs of the day properly, and therefore needs renovation.

The last thing it needs is squabbling noncooperative English second peoples referendum or general election influencing its own elections which will have more than ample pitfalls of their own. 

The Union is a rule-based union > if it is perceived to modify its rules without open democratic transparency it can only blame itself for its disintegration.

The Union might be only sixty odd years old but its history of breaking rules.

A confederation is based on trickle-down authority. The ultimate power lies in the individual states. It has no effective powers to prevent its own member states from violating its core values of respect for democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.

Take Hungary, for example. Here is a member state casually flouting basic democratic norms and human rights, swiftly evolving into an authoritarian nightmare, with absolutely no meaningful consequences. The country’s parliament has not just passed a law making claims for asylum almost impossible:

Take Poland, for example. Authoritarian Poland is making an utter mockery of the EU’s stated commitment to democracy and human rights.

Defining appropriate institutions to regulate and mediate between economic and social forces is a global and not just European challenge, but its achievement may appear too far out of reach.

The EU is buffeted by multiple crises, from Brexit to the assumption of power of a Eurosceptic Italian government.

But its acceptance of its own member states succumbing to authoritarianism may prove its greatest existential threat of all.

One of the biggest problems with the EU is not how the politicians are “elected”, but how can you get rid of them when they fail to perform.

For many reasons, (addressed in previous posts) I think the EU project is fundamentally flawed.  That those who “run” the EU are not subjected to a democratic election is scandalous.

Integration is what has given Europe its strength in economic globalization, and this integration will play a huge part in Europe’s survival in the age of political globalization. They cannot be tarnished by concession to England just for the sake of the Market.

Closer integration will have to include services but also the huge market for training and skills. It will comprise an energy union, just as it will have to comprise a proper “market” for people. This market will include not just the now-endangered EU principle of free movement in the EU. It will also include its flip side, a properly regulated shared “market” for immigrants.

What seems impossible today will have to come, no matter how much nationalist sentiments stand against it.

The EU serves a purpose, and its workings and its setup will have to be adapted as this purpose changes. Again and again.

How can this be achieved?

Fundamentally, the EU either serves the needs of the day or it gets into a crisis.

A more open decision-making process might have a positive effect on public interest in democracy at the EU level but it will not unity because it is becoming more and more evident that the single market with all its rules is more important than the citizens.

The dominant dividing line of the new parliament will become a contest between politicians who want to find common EU-level solutions to current challenges and those who favour safeguarding and reaffirming national sovereignty.

So I predict a Europe in which values will be handled closer to the lowest common denominator than to the great ideals that Europe wants to stand for.

This will be a source of never-ending tension, but it will prove less costly than becoming divided over maximalist morals only to lose out in the harsh world of political globalization.

The peoples of Europe will no longer integrate because they feel love for the idea of an integrated Europe—if ever they did. Integration will come only when the pain is really massive. And it is massive only in some policy fields, not in all. And it will remain so until the European Union affords a direct opportunity to its citizens to invest in EU that brings a reward with that investment. ( See the previous Post)

The politics of fear by building electoral platforms based on liberal principles, pointing out the big challenges surrounding technology and climate change, and showing that migration is just one issue among many.

There is no real hope for EU federalists because the Union relies on a global order that the Europeans are unable to guarantee. The direction of integration is more diffuse now than in the past.

However, the quest for political order on a planet that has outgrown its merely regional structure might have the chance to make a difference.

So with the European elections this time it’s not enough to hope for a better future: this time each and every one of us must take responsibility for it too.

Artificial intelligence has been confined to the lab for so long that it is hard sometimes to recognise that it is now an actual technology that we use without thinking. The EU is right to try to harness it.

Voting, on the other hand, has not been around for a long time, it now needs more thinking than ever.

After a woeful five years, this is perhaps last chance for the EU to prove it can regain the initiative. The stakes have never been higher, and the EU needs someone who is confident, can communicate and represents the people.

The EU needs a serious person at the helm, and it cannot afford to leave the choice to an obscure process that has so far failed to find the best person for the job.

The ‘technocratic’ rhetoric of economists and central bankers convinced most people that there is no feasible alternative to (financial) market logic, to fiscal austerity, low wages, flexible labour markets and independent central banks.

This way, establishment economics has constrained (and continues to constrain) political choices, stripping electorates of their autonomy in political and moral judgement.

This is a dangerous game since the only way disenfranchised electorates can express their anger, anxiety and powerlessness is by choosing self-defined. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european fascism"

The tragedy of Brexit powered by Farage & all doesn’t have any real solutions.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse or like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S ITS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY ENGLAND IS LEAVING THE EU.

10 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Our Common Values., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read)

This truth has been with us from the dawn of humanity.

The inability to share leads to most world problems.

Inequality.

With the ability to share truth and untruths through social media right now, it’s difficult to know what to trust or who to trust.

Are we seeing a return to protectionism or the redefining of capitalism, to sustainability before profit?

There is one certainty Social media is having an effect on where power and how power is used giving rise to Popolusim contra Eliatilism.

So I think it is time to be a bit more honest and plain-speaking about the circumstances that have led to Brexit.

Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"

Misinformation is spreading.

When it comes to Brexit, we have reached the point where, to an extraordinary extent, the implementation of the 2016 referendum result trumps all else. But as we approach the departure date all statements about British politics should be assumed to include to the word “probably”

If it will happen when it will happen.

For the most part, the debate about Brexit since the 2016 referendum has been framed primarily in economic terms but it is my contention that Brexit, whether it happens or not, is now showing that the EU never was the problem. 

The problem is fixing Britain’s relationship with itself.

The irony is that the country that was least affected by the migration crisis is the one where we are now seeing the most consequential political backlash.

Those who promise that leaving the EU will deliver “control” are really promising something quite specific: a social and cultural reboot.

Of course, this is a complete impossibility. We live in a world defined by the economic, social and cultural interdependence of nation states.

Take back control” was indeed the slogan of the Leave campaign, but it was “control” with one purpose, above all others, the relationship between taxation and public spending and immigration.

A wealthy nation is essential both to the aspirations of individual households and the funding of public services. Unfortunately, England is now reaping the rewards of putting the economy before its people.

Of selling most of its assets, of investing in a world image of power when in fact its people were on the streets due to lack of social housing, were lying in hospital corridors due to lack of funding, were relying on food banks due to lack of decent wages, were running up personal debts, were educated for the market place.

These are now the gravitational centre of the whole debate:

Britain’s act of masochism in leaving the EU will create a country that is unpopular, self-hating and insecure about its identity.

There will be no game-changing trade deals.

It is better that they draw this conclusion today rather than in 2040 after a period of harsh isolation in the middle of the North Sea.

The British people (and particularly the English), who have been in search of their identity since 1945, might finally recognize that it lies not in the distant past (Empire/Commonwealth), nor in the recent past (“special relationship” with the US) but in the future.

The only sensible course, therefore, is to suspend Article 50 and request a return to the status quo ante.

This could be done following a proper constitutional process, meaning a parliamentary vote. Britain can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and therefore freeze the process of leaving the EU.

Britain can write a letter to the EU and state that it wants to freeze its withdrawal process, and that’s what it takes to get yourself off the default path towards crashing out.

However, this process cannot be used just to pause the process and regroup.

In order to pause the process and regroup, the U.K. would need to have the consent of all the other EU members.

If it were just a request to say, oh, we’ve really lost our mind, we don’t quite know what to do, it’s very unlikely that the other 27 members would say, oh, yeah, sure, fine, let’s do that.

Then we come to the Backstop re Northern Ireland;

Northern Ireland wants some legally binding assurances that the U.K. will be able to get out of it unilaterally.

The probability of EU leaders conceding this is zero. And it’s zero today. And it’s zero down the road.

The EU’s position has been very much: This is—this is not negotiable. And, frankly, they all know that you know, a number of EU members are unhappy with the terms of the withdrawal agreement. And if it were to be reopened, it would be a whole can of worms with a lot of, you know, different asks being put on the table.

So this is just not going to happen without the backstop becoming the front stop.

The priority list in continental Europe, with coming elections you know, Brexit isn’t the first thing, or the second thing, or the third thing; it’s somewhere after that.

The disasters to befall the EU27 won’t have befallen them. They will, instead, have continued to evolve their community, grow their economy, taken heed of lessons played out across the Channel, made things better.

Does any of this matter?

Because London is fine, Westminster and the BBC will say Britain is fine. This is no longer so, there is a much uglier reality and one that has little to do with GDP.

If London loses its financial clout there will be a fundamental change to the British economy that Britain now needs to cycle through before it can clarify where it wants to end up with in this Brexit process.

Brexit is both symptom and cause of a breakdown in this consensus.

This needs to be understood outside the day-to-day disasters of the Brexit process itself.

The NHS won’t have fixed itself. Nor will social care. Nor pension problem. Nor it’s out of date infrastructure.

So low and behold we now see department ministers promising funds to fix the NHS etc. However, Brexit will be a suffocating error when it comes to finding these funds. A poorer U.K. outside the EU will be less useful both as a military ally and as a diplomatic partner or as a trading partner.

There could be one unanticipated positive outcome.

The conventional politics of “left versus right” no longer apply:

The political party that can transcend party lines and speak to people across the ideological spectrum will be the rising voice in the next 10 years.

It is unlikely that either of the main political parties in England will survive in their current forms, given the pressures their internal coalitions are already under.

It does not take a nitwit that global we are witnessed the highest number of global battle deaths for 25 years, persistently high levels of terrorism, and the highest number of refugees and displaced people since World War II.

If this is not observable we are left with “the essence of bullshit: a complete lack of concern with truth” and “an indifference to how things really are.”

All one has to do is turn on your TV.  Who can tell what infringements to our civil liberties will have been introduced in the name of keeping us safe? What new walls will be built?

The important thing is not that what he says is true, but that it persuades. and by then none of us will have recourse to Europe to stave them off, either?

Luckily there is no such thing as an average human being.

Nonetheless, that fictional construct is precisely what businesses use to explain human behaviour, reducing us to mere consumers.

There are however those who navigate the currents of uncertainty and change without the need for any particular dogma or orthodoxy to guide them. These are the innovators, thinkers, misfits, activists, artists, and creators who can be found on the fringes of any walk of life, nipping at the hem of hegemonic power, disrupting the status quo, and bravely embracing the unknown.

The future belongs to these voices, not to a world where the truth has become so malleable and subjective as to be almost meaningless as a concept. 

It also belongs to those brave enough to stand up to bullshit in some of its most vaunted forms. There is some hope for this.  

The fine line between the present and the future never looked so blurry.

However, the truth has to persist unaffected, in the past, in the present and in the future.

The next victims of social media will be based on media trends.

What is left when you take away all the ads and the packaging of Brexit is the truth of the product –

Wake up England and stop being the sulking wanting to leave the room when you still have the chance to influence the creation of a Europe, whole, free and at peace.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"
All human comments appreciated/All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UK National Debt is estimated to be £1.84 trillion.

Uk Defence spending is budgeted to be £48.3 billion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A quick examination of the numbers reveals that the world continues to spend vastly disproportionate resources on creating and containing violence compared to what it spends on peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how you design the ballot would have a material impact on how it turned out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT WHAT ENGLAND WILL LOOK LIKE IN A YEAR.

30 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Union., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Populism., Post - truth politics., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

 

(Two-minute read)

THIS IS WHAT ENGLAND WILL BE LIKE WHETHER IT LEAVES THE EU OR NOT.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of england in the future"

After an entirely voluntary act of self-harm England will have lost its European identity with no obvious solutions. No longer a global economy it will struggle to be heard in the United Nations World, not to mention in the USA.

Struggling to make ends meet we will see a country that is not only insecure about its place in the world but struggling with its internal identity not to mention it’s past.

There will be no game-changing world trade deals to deal with its loss of revenue to allow a proper restructuring of funding of its infrastructure. 

London as Corporate England (which sets its own rules) will carry on, powered as ever by its own brand equity with sterling strengthen due to the race to the bottom of corporate and other taxes.

With a deepening sense of nationalism or isolationism, English politics will feed on the helplessness of the old parties, driving the youth of the country to become activism, leading to civil unrest.

All of which will strengthen the perception of a liquid world with populist solutions.

The conservative party will split with a new populist political party promoting coexistence, appreciation of diversity, liberal pluralistic democracy freedom of speech, and internationalism.

As with the Eu if opportunity and wealth are not seen to be distributed evenly populist will sweep everything in its path, becoming more anxiety driven, angrier.

( BOTH ENGLAND AND THE EU NEED TO PURSUE AN ECONOMIC POLICY THAT DEFENDS CAPITALISM AND FREE TRADE BUT ENSURES THAT THE BENEFITS OF THIS SYSTEM REACH THE MAJORITY OF THE THE POPULATION.

THEY BOTH NEED TO DEFEND A SOCIETY THAT IS BOTH FAIR AND MULTI-ETHNIC WHICH MEANS DOMESTICATING NATIONALISM BY BROADENING THE BONDS AND SOLIDARITY BEYOND THE PERSON THE FAMILY OR ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS TIES.)

Populism will make decisions on reform that the euro area needs to ensure sustainability almost impossible to achieve.

Relationship with Ireland will start to show signs of strain over the border and fishing.

Northern Ireland will be in turmoil with a pending vote on Unity with Southern Ireland.

Wales and Scotland will still be shackled as whimpering serfs to the throne.

The cost of living will increase. The huge cost of maintaining naval and military power will come under severe criticism against the cost of the NHS and social care.

The EU will stay an integrated economic area even it fails to survive in its present form.

BOTH ECONOMIES EU AND UK WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED MUCH except for the pace of growth.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASK’S: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT AGREE TO.

12 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., Gibraltar and Spain, Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Politics., The common good., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A three-minute read)

My recent Beady Eye post attempted to explain the origins of the Northern Ireland border.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the good friday agreement"

THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Up to the Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland was in effect a one-party state, in which half of the population was routinely discriminated against.

The agreement marked a commitment to “the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone with Britain agreed to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into the law of Northern Ireland.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of The Belfast Agreement, more commonly known as The Good Friday Agreement.

SIGNED ON THE 10th April 1998. It effectively brought an end to The Troubles, which had raged in the region for thirty years. It was widely seen in Britain, as elsewhere, as a significant act of statesmanship, supported by both main parties.

A devolved assembly was established for both sides to govern together and while unionists were assured of their British identity, a united Ireland was acknowledged as a legitimate political goal for Republicans.

As the Irish border is becoming a critical issue in the Brexit negotiations, it now appears at risk.

CONDEMNING THE AGREEMENT TO THE POLITICAL SHREDDER.

Some 71 percent of people in Northern Ireland voted to accept the agreement in a referendum, with the DUP (NOW BRIBING THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO THE TUNE OF 6 BILLION TO REMAIN IN POWER) being the only party to reject it.

The system of power-sharing government it established in Northern Ireland has not functioned for over a year.

However, the collective failure in Northern Ireland will not be blamed just on Brexit nor on the DUP but on the EU if it agrees to any border visible or otherwise.

The harder the border between north and south, the more reckless the UK’s decision to leave the EU will be judged.

A significant amount of direct funding is at stake: the EU provides Northern Ireland with nearly a billion euros a year for agriculture, employment, and projects related to the peace process.

Of course, no one talks about the other border between Gibraltar and Spain where British territory also has a historic claim placed on it by a foreign power, namely Spain.

It will “make the Irish problem look like a picnic”.

96 percent of Gibraltarians voted to Remain in 2016.

Of course there are differences between Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, obviously, based on geography, economics, and history. Gibraltar isn’t in the UK, but as a close overseas dependent territory, it may as well be.

The EU has given Spain a formal veto over Brexit if Madrid is not happy with the Gibraltar dimensions of a Brexit deal. The Irish didn’t get that.

Gibraltar could easily be treated much like other EU microstates such as Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, and Andorra; EU members in all but name, albeit with no formal voting powers.

SO WHY NOT NORTHERN IRELAND?

GIBRALTAR REPRESENTS one tiny strip of land, two vetoes and three governments trying to achieve the impossible WHILE NORTHERN IRELAND REPRESENTS A HISTORICAL DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

Makes you wonder if all this collateral damage TO ALL CONCERNED is worth it.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.